Template:Did you know nominations/Amar Nath Yadav


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Amar Nath Yadav

 * ... that Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate Amar Nath Yadav mustered a quarter million votes in the Siwan seat in the 1999 election?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bedford Road Historic District Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Melton

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 11:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Long enough at 1793 characters sana markup etc.
 * New - started this morning.
 * neutral - I'm unsure if "strongman" is sufficiently neutral.
 * Lots of citations including the hook, citations in every section. Two sources re attack on Yadav are links to google books, are these acceptable?


 * ALT1: ... that Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate Amar Nath Yadav mustered a quarter million votes in the Siwan seat in the 1999 election, but still only came second?
 * Sophie means wisdom (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As per Shahabuddin, I'd say that 'strongman' is very carefully worded for NPOV. The Indian media routinely refers to him as a 'Don'. The Wikipedia article on him has the lede sentence "one of India's most powerful criminal-politicians". For me the original hook is better than the alt, as the rare fact is that a CPI(ML) candidate gets such high numbers, whilst it is quite common that candidates of the party don't get elected. --Soman (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needs to be completed, and a second opinion on neutrality is also in order. As the first review didn't cover close paraphrasing, the completion should address this issue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: when reporting politics you can never please all factions in the neutrality department. When I worked on a newspaper, there were always councillors from all political parties at the reception desk, all complaining that the paper had given more prominence/favour to all other parties except theirs. One can only do ones' best. The news staff believed it was actually just a tactic to get more soapbox space in the paper; the councillors were all good friends in a sort of way, and would often turn up together! --Storye book (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This review is to complete the one above, though I'm double-checking it anyway. I agree it's long enough and new enough. Original hook and ALT1 check out with online citation #14; I like both hooks. No problem with disambig links or external links. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found after searching external links. In my opinion this is a considered and carefuly neutral article. "Strongman" is very polite, considering Shahabuddin's reputation according to the sources - so yes, neutral. Issues: User:Soman, please could you kindly do another QPQ because the one you listed was overridden as insufficient on the template. If you don't have time, say so and I'll donate my review for Template:Did you know nominations/Bernward Doors and let's get this nom through quickly. When the QPQ is sorted, this nom will be good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this. New QPQ added now. (ping User:Storye book) --Soman (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, Soman, QPQ is now OK. I have struck ALT1 because nominator prefers original hook (although there is nothing wrong with ALT1). Good to go, with original hook. --Storye book (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)